Article Sidebar

Share this Story: NHL's "Return to Play" model is taking shape, and it's not kind to the Edmonton Oilers

Trending

Article content

Some real progress being reported on Thursday about the NHL’s still-evolving plans to return to action and resolve the 2019-20 season some time this summer. Edmonton is in the running to be one of the “hub cities”, though this decision is a ways off. So too is the crucial matter of when action might resume. But the framework is being laid, indeed is reportedly in the advanced discussion phases, of how the competition will be set up. A direct return into playoff action seems to be in the cards, involving a bloated group of 24 teams.

Alas, the proposal currently being discussed by the league and its Players Association includes an unexpected wrinkle which will hurt one team above any other: your Edmonton Oilers.

NHL's "Return to Play" model is taking shape, and it's not kind to the Edmonton OilersBack to video

The proposed format gives second life to a couple of teams that were all but out of the running, notably Montreal Canadiens — currently 10 points below the playoff cutline but magically revived for an expanded playoffs. Same goes for Chicago Blackhawks in the west, 6 points out under the standard format and sellers at the trade deadline. But suddenly with new life.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Hockey insider Frank Seravalli provides much of the background in this detailed report posted to TSN.ca. Take it away, Frank:

In this 24-team proposal, the top 12 teams from each conference, based on points percentage, will play on, with the top four in the East and West (regardless of division) each receiving a bye to the actual playoff portion.

Key words highlighted in bold indicate that the proposed format will entirely abandon the divisional playoffs that have been the league’s standard approach since 2013-14, returning instead to just the two conferences and doing all playoff seedings using the larger groups. This is a critical distinction in that the top four in the conference, not the top two in each division, will receive a bye that guarantees their appearance in the second round. Those teams will play a round robin series to get themselves into playing shape, but in which they will not face possible elimination. It’s a critical distinction.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Using divisional seedings, the same teams originally slated to have home ice advantage in the first round would instead get the bye, while the #3 team would play a wild card team and the 4-5 would face off against each other. But by using just the conference for seeding, the list of teams getting the bye changes ever so slightly. See if you can spot the difference:

Hey lookit, the Oilers have gone from home ice advantage and the favourite status in their opening divisional series, to on the outside looking in for a bye using conference seedings that were never in play all season. Their replacement, the Dallas Stars (an eighth American team, mind), are shown with asterisks because they actually have one fewer point than the Oilers, albeit in two fewer games played, so a superior points percentage. The Stars also have five fewer regulation wins than do the Oil, lest you think they are truly a stronger team.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

While the notion of using points percentage is defensible, it’s worth noting that in the official rules (at the bottom of the standings page at NHL.com) points percentage is recognized as a tool to break ties — which this isn’t.

This seems to account for situations where one team plays fewer than another. It’s the first tie-breaker — if they are actually tied. Except not in this case, where we seem to be making up the rules as we go along.

This latter argument is more of a technicality in a season that is decidedly unequal by any measure, even as Oilers could argue the letter of the law. But the first debating point — that playoff teams should be seeded first by division, then by conference, not the other way around — was written into the books at the last CBA specifically to promote divisional and geographic rivalries.

Instead, you might as well throw those historic rivalries right out the window. The format currently under discussion yields the following play-in round match-ups:

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

A closer look at the NHL’s 24-team playoff proposal...

The #NHL & #NHLPA have hashed out an initial framework for how the #StanleyCup may be awarded in 2020, pending approval from both sides.

Eight preliminary series, of which exactly ONE — Carolina vs. NY Rangers — is a divisional rivalry. The other seven all feature two teams that aren’t even in the same division. Not one divisional match-up in the Western Conference, moreover, if the seeded favourites win their play-in series, there would be none in the next round either.

Let’s imagine instead a collection of series that honoured the intent of the NHL’s existing playoff format. In the West it would look something like this:

Central:

#4 Nashville vs #5 Winnipeg, winner vs. #1 St. Louis or #2 Colorado

#3 Dallas vs WC2 Chicago, winner vs. #2 Colorado or #1 St. Louis

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Pacific:

#4 Calgary vs. #5 Arizona, winner vs. #1 Vegas or #2 Edmonton

#3 Vancouver vs. WC1 Minnesota, winner vs. #2 Edmonton or #1 Vegas

A similar situation would hold sway in the East with both Wild Card teams from the Metropolitan, forcing one cross-over series but only one. In both conferences, three of the preliminary round series would feature divisional rivals, and at least three, possibly all four Round of 16 match-ups would as well.

How important is the bye? Those who get it will still have to win four series and 16 playoff games to claim the Stanley Cup. But teams forced to play the preliminary round will need to win five series and 19 playoff games to capture the Grail. That’s a tall order. If I were a betting man I’d lay odds right now that the Cup will be won by a team with a bye, even as that group is just a third of the 24 playoff teams.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

The NHL does have a precedent of first-round byes, which prevailed from 1974-78. In those four seasons the NHL had 18 teams, and 12 qualified for the post season. Four received byes, and eight had to play a preliminary best-of-three play-in series. Over the four years, only twice did a team with a bye lose a series to a team that had to play its way in. All four years, the Stanley Cup Finals featured two teams that received byes through the first round. It’s a big damn deal.

And wouldn’t you know it, the play-in trap has snared the Oilers. If the proposed format is passed, the Oil would return to action to face immediate elimination games, while teams like the Stars can take it relatively easy at first with what amount to glorified exhibition games. Meanwhile the play-in teams face possible elimination in as little as three games.

Advertisement

Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Have to admit I preferred a proposal previously doing the rounds, in which the teams were split into four groups of six (divisions, with the possibility of one wild card switching over in each conference). Each group would start with weighted standings based on actual regular season performance, and play a round robin, guaranteeing each and every team five games to close out the regular season. After that, eight teams would be eliminated and the other 16 would move on the play a traditional four-round post-season.

But apparently that reasonable compromise has gone the way of the dodo bird, as has the league’s emphasis on divisional and geographic rivalries. The result as it currently stands is a hodge-podge of match-ups with relatively little prehistory.

While it sounds like the new Conference-based plan has momentum and its adoption may be imminent, it’s incumbent on the Oilers’ representatives to clear their throats and make their case. Second in the Pacific should be worth some sort of edge, be it home ice advantage in a traditional, binary playoff format, or an opening round bye in the special case of 2019-20. Since the NHL has gone out of its way in modern times to emphasize divisional play, they should stick to their stated principles and modify the COVID Playoffs in that spirit.

Share this Story: NHL's "Return to Play" model is taking shape, and it's not kind to the Edmonton Oilers

Trending

Related Stories

This Week in Flyers

Article Comments

Comments

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Notice for the Postmedia Network

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.